Oh, I'm sure,....if I cared a jot for anything splinterhead et al said, or even thought, I might be upset, but as it is



I just wish people wouldn't quote posters who are only on the wind up....

Have you thought it through?

The company formed by Mr A and Mr B take normal Sky money and run AB into the ground. It goes into admin and can't be saved so ends up liquidated. The business and such assets as there are are sold by the administrator. They are bought by Mr. X and Mr Z and they had no connection with the business of A&B and no part in the insolvent behaviour.

Why would A&B ever think such a thought, then? To underline how unfeasible the notion is, we only have to flesh out what that thought would be:

"Hang on a minute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending, after all we might not be able to afford all this and the club may go tits. Then the somebody else altogether may buy the remains from an administrator and start trying to sort out the mess but the RFL will fine them a year's Sky distribution, and then where will we be?"

I suggest it is ridiculous that they would think any such thing. Why should the threat that some future owner of A&B's business, if they bankrupt and lose it, would get fined a year's distribution, be the thing that incentivised A&B to reining in their spending? Why would A&B care [iwhat[/i penalties were imposed on X&Z or any potential future owners? How would that be in any way a deterrent to A&B's behaviour?

It's like if when you took out a mortgage, you were told, if you fail to meet your payments, your house will be repossessed. Oh, and the next person who buys it will have to pay double the mortgage payments." You might very much worry about the former, but would you give the smallest shiit about the latter? Would concern for any future owner influence how you ran the account?

I remember the days before batteries where you had to wind everything up to get it to work

Now that sounds painful

Agree with you here FA. People seem to think that the only reason a club goes into administration is to clear down the debts.

The last 2 administrations of Bradford Bulls have seen us taken over by 2 separate owners (i'm choosing to forget the bit in the middle).

Why would the new owner have any impact of the spending of the previous regime?

Placing a club into administration, for the sole purpose of clearing debts, sounds like a club I know that has a WF postcode

I am sure some people are confused, but sadly others choose to pretend all insolvency events are the same.

A distribution penalty would perhaps act as a deterrent to those sort of "administrations" that involve a pre-pack or a CVA and basically same people as before end up back in charge, but having swerved a load of debt. I can entirely see the logic in sanctions in such a case, as you are sanctioning the same people as caused the mess, and if they knew in advance that they risked that sanction then it would be a factor they would have to take into account.

But in a case where factually new owners come in, there just is no logic in doing the same to them.

If you had bothered to read what i posted, which was that it was rich calling the rfl into account over stupid financial ideals, you might see that i didn't write that i was in any agreement with it.
Just because what the rfl has done makes little sense (was it the rfl's decision or that of the SL chairmen??) it doesnt take anything away from the fact that the club could have (if they had wanted) avoided all this in the first place. At some point someone must have seen a tipping point and thought "**** it! It'll be reyt!!) and here you are (not a d ig, we've been there also) so pointing the finger is a little dis-honest...IMO of course.

I didn't suggest you were. I just pointed out why your hypothetical club owners' thought (""hang on aminute! this could all go badly wrong, lets rein in our spending") would not be influenced by the prospect of sanctions on some unknown future third party.

"If they had wanted"? You mean you think OKB did not want to remain solvent? Well, that's a new one! Delberate bankruptcy! I can accept entirely they were shiit at running it, but can't accept they wouldn't have [iwanted[/i to avoid the ensuing mire!

When you are Bulls fan you can draw on the clubs direct experience of administrations - so it strikes me that in case of the Hood administration they took some dumb decisions with pricing - but had the records to show them they where heading up s**t creek and desperately tried to avoid hitting the rocks as they were aware of the consequences administration would bring - and hoped to keep control. In the case of the OK administration he was blissfully unaware that he had already sailed several miles up s**t creek at the time he was busy putting off potential investors. That's the problem with regulations even if you threatened some people with execution in Oklahoma they still wouldn't take any notice.

That execution - I note how well it went - and it is OKlahoma ...
.. you don't think ... surely not?

Maybe they should have put it in the executioner's contract that, if he got sacked for bodging executions, his successor would be fines a year's pay. That would have sorted it.

I have the misfortune to work for a Texan company and they think the Oklahomans are out and out commies for pussy footing around with socialistic lethal injections when the guy would clearly have been finished by a quick blast from a M60. When I saw all the stories about the mystery Texan millionaire interested in the Bulls I was thinking be careful what you wish for.

This is what you commented

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

There is no rule that allows (or disallows) any such appeal. But if you say the a right of "appeal" by someone =#BF0000(the new owners ) who have never actually had a ruling made against them, then please refer me to that rule. If you can, I will of course gladly accept its existence.

The wording of 4.7 covers Acquisition, Change of Control not just insolvency event.

[i In the event of a member ceasing to be a member upon notice from the Company by virtue of Acquisition, Change of Control or Insolvency Event, the Board, at its absolute discretion, shall have the right to readmit the member or admit a new member as a member on any terms as it sees fit, which for the avoidance of doubt, may include financial, administrative and/or sporting sanctions[/i

BB2014 had sanctions applied because of the OKB Insolvency event. Membership was conditional, and it terminated, not by Acquisition but through Change of Control. Control of the Club passed to BBNL who applied for/ readmission to membership, and the sanctions were applied. as for them being announced, dont you state in your last reply that the sanctions still stood? Isnt that enough, or does it need to be published in the London Gazette? And at the end of the day however they have been announced, BBNL seem to accept their existence, why are you so reluctant to do so?